About your Search

20120930
20121008
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
," but i don't get it. >> a much stronger reaction from former ge ceo jack welch who tweeted unbelievable jobs numbers. these chicago guys will do anything. can't debate, so change numbers. and from florida tea party congressman alan west. he put up i agree with former ge ceo jack welch. chicago-style work involved it. solis responded to the suggestion the numbers were cooked. >> i'm insulted when i hear that, because we have a very professional civil service organization where you have top, top economists that work at the bls. they've been doing these calculations. these are our best trained and best skilled individuals that have been working in the field. it's really ludicrous to hear that kind of statement. >> let's bring in our "news nation" political panel today. john harwood and zachary ca caribel. thank you, gentlemen, for joining me. john, i want to come to you first because i want to play what president obama and governor romney said just a short time ago reacting to the jobs reports. let me play those first, both of them. >> there were fewer new jobs created this month than last
in the an employment rate on just 114,000 jobs growth in the month surprising to jack welch, former ceo of ge. here is what he said. >> well, and the last two months we have gone from 83-81. now we are going to 7.8% by changing the numbers assumptions. like. i don't know if -- what the right number is. i tell you, these numbers don't smell right when you think about where the economy is right now. gerri: gary, to you first. is the bls giving as ps? >> it is the bs. look. three months ago i said that even if we got newt we would be under 8% because the politics of it. we saw 30 days ago the fed announced a open ended printing of money to get asset prices up, and they say 50 days before election, this one is a joke. if you noticed anything about this number, the estimates of job gains came in the exact amount it was supposed to which should have kept it at 8.2%. the estimates, somehow we got to 7.8%, and the use the most of tiles survey, the household survey. gerri: we will get to that. >> 400,000. gerri: can these numbers be sai's? >> i don't think they can. we have had rumors of bls massaging numbe
fell to below 8%? also jack welch, the former ge guy. >> yep. >> he's tweeting this morning and saying, unbelievable jobs numbers. these chicago guys will do anything. can't debate, so change numbers. i mean -- so is it possible the labor department is lying or has changed these numbers in some way? >> look, these numbers are often revised. usually when you have a vibrant growing jobs market a revision of 86,000 doesn't make any difference at all. you have much more jobs being created. we don't have that right now. in terms of why the two numbers are different, there are two different surveys the government does. hou household survey where they ask people wheer they're employed and a company survey where they ask companies how many people are employed. those are two different numbers. so that's why you have the number of jobs created or lost and the jobless rate. that's the technical data gathering reason. as for -- look, you'll hear conservatives say either they don't trust these numbers or they're going to say, look, 114,000 is the important number to look at here. that's not good en
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)